On the morality of parenting

_db

Society generally holds a hands-off approach to parenting. Parent(s) can not only have a child (which itself is obviously fraught with moral issues), but they also can raise them as they please, teach them their values, steer them in the direction in which they prefer. The way a parent dispenses justice to their child is usually not regulated, unless someone files a report.

Furthermore, first-time parents do not know what they are doing. Bizarrely, this is cherished - every parent I know looks back in a reflective nostalgia at their younger years, learning the ropes of how to be a parent. Many straight up admit they screwed up in certain places. Yet it is taken to be all very romantic and beautiful. The alleged beauty of parenting seems to transcend its questionable morality.

But let's think about this more. Ignore the looming cloud of antinatalism for the moment: why is it okay for young "adults" - even teenagers - to raise a child without any prior experience? Is it really morally acceptable to just let people "do as they wish" to their children? These people don't know what they're doing!, and another life is literally on the line!

This non-intervention, hands-off approach to parenting exists because children are treated as aesthetic objects of the parents' ideals. Parents live vicariously through their children. It is taken to be disrespectful to criticize how another person parents - how dare you tell me how to raise MY child!!!

Additionally, because children are aesthetic objects, parents are motivated to lie and coerce their children. Parents are older, "wiser" and they feel the need to shelter their children from the rest of the world to a degree (and those who don't are seen as "harsh" or even "unloving"). It is taken as a sign of love for one's child to lie to them about the world, to pretend they are perfect or unique or special and will inevitably succeed, that the world is a happy place and that good always prevails over evil. Parents do not believe this about themselves, but they project this onto their children. In other words, children are aesthetic objects that primarily serve the desires of parents, specifically in succeeding where the parents have failed. The child's success is taken to be the parent's success, and a failed child reflects poorly on the parents. Thus there is an inter-generational tyranny over the autonomy of the child. The child is always related to their parents, this cannot be removed.

The tyrannical aspect of this comes in the form of an oppressive guilt that the progeny experiences. Paradoxically, the act of parenting is a selfish act of sacrifice. The parent sacrifices a great deal, perhaps even everything, for the sake of their child, and the child feels obligated to return this reciprocity, regardless of their actual appreciation.

Since babies will continue to be created, the qualifications and standards of parenting thus stands as a serious practical moral concern that I believe has been sorely neglected. Should parents have to learn how to be parent before having children? How much autonomy should be given parents in their choices of raising their children?

unenlightened

You presume the nuclear family. What 'ought' to happen is a much more collaborative child-rearing, shared between siblings as aunts and uncles, grandparents, and the older kids learning to look after the younger ones, and so on. What is wrong is that one can reach puberty and start a family with no experience of caring for children or anyone else.

Unfortunately when one talks of standards and qualifications one is starting from the worst possible place, that of the mechanisation of childhood.

schopenhauer1

↪darthbarracuda

Indeed everyone thinks they are going to be a good parent. One of the big problems is that hope is a nasty drug that deludes the reality of the day-to-day struggles people actually experience. Everyone thinks their child will be the ones to achieve happiness on all levels of human endeavors when, in reality, most people reach a mediocre life at best..

Nothing is distributed such that everyone gets the same level of happiness-attainment in life. Some people will have it much easier- the best work, lifestyle, love, relationships, etc. This level of attainment can be due to all sorts of factors of genetic, experiential, circumstantial, and most of all fortune. While some will have it easy, others won't.. This is not determined by the hopes of the parent!

Let's look at something as (seemingly) essential as a good love-life (significant others, relationships, etc.). While some people find (what they deem to be) their true "love".. others will struggle much of their lives.. Maybe they aren't "doing it right", maybe they have bad circumstances, maybe they gotta try a bit harder.. While the parents probably had in mind ideal circumstances when projecting into the future their child's life, that is never the reality for most people.

So, hope is the drug.

BC

↪darthbarracuda

If we were going to regulate parenthood, we ought to be prepared to regulate courtship since parenthood frequently begins with wooing (whether or not a wedding follows).

How many times have you seen embarrassing relationships that really ought to have been terminated by the state? I can think of a woman who should definitely have been court ordered both out of an abusive relationship and away from parenthood, as well. She paired up badly and went on to be an abysmal parent of her 5 children from 4 fathers.

This woman's case is the negative example of the good and bad news: Parents are only partially responsible for the outcomes of their children. This woman's two siblings have good careers, married well, and are good and successful parents. This wretched woman is not a welfare client -- she's educated and works as a teacher (the better to screw up more people).

Children come pre-loaded with features that their parents will not, in most cases, be able to turn off. The gay child will stay gay whether the fundamentalist parents like it or not. The intellectually gifted child of two ordinary people is going to stay gifted. The adventurous baby who turns into the adventurous adolescent will probably remain adventurous, even though it scares the daylights out of his parents.

Parents have a limited range of post-natal effects they can have on their children. They can undermine strengths, support good mental health, offer encouragement, help the deficient child adapt, etc. but they can't make a silk purse out of their sow's ear offspring. So, even though many first time parents have not taken a course in animal husbandry, they have all been raised by somebody (for better or worse) and they have observed other people being raised (for better and worse).

Plus, people will offer abundant free advice to new parents about how they should go about raising their children. Some of it will even be good advice.

Maybe 15% of the heterosexual population in the world are just too fucked up and would be well advised to not marry and not have children. Those who would make good spouses and excellent parents should be given financial encouragement.

There are ugly people I would just as soon see banned from the gene pool, and there are certainly people who are so stupid they really ought not reproduce. Surely this is a problem that can be solved by software -- look at Tinder and Facebook. "OMG! Only 2 people looked at your body for as long as 1/2 second all of last year (Tinder)!!! and you have only 8 likes from 3000 followers (Facebook). Better become a recluse."

Edit: Some sentences, hell - some paragraphs - in this post were not 100% serious.

Pseudonym

↪darthbarracuda

I agree entirely with your intention here, but the trouble with such an approach is that to do anything about it (apart from antinatalism, which you specified should be set aside for now), one would have to hold that there existed a correct way to do it that everyone is striving for but fails to achieve.

Personally, I'm a naturalist, so I'm quite content to take an evolutionary position and say that such a method exists (not that this means I'm convinced that we could ever know it, but that we can get closer to it). But my naturalism is just a belief and others believe differently, so how could we ever possibly reconcile this?

I parent in a very different way to the rest of my society, in fact some of my parenting choices (like not sending my children to school) are so different that they're illegal in some countries and against the European Convention on Human Rights. The last thing I'd want is for the government, or some authority to tell me how to do it.

It's absolutely obscene the way some parents treat their children as objects of their possession which they can instruct and mould to their own personal satisfaction using whatever threats, bribes and blackmail get the job done. I hope that in years to come we will look back with disgust at the way we treated children in the same way we look back with disgust at the way we treated slaves. But I don't see how teaching people how to be parents would solve this problem because who would be the teachers?

The only way to tackle the problem that I can see is to raise your own children in the best way you see fit, and hope that others of like mind will join you, learn from each other etc.

There's also a movement fighting for children to have equal rights (I know, it sounds crazy that we're actually having to do this), but it's not a campaign group in the sense of trying to convince other people by argument (that's a lost cause as far as I'm concerned), It's using the fact that the law should be consistent to try and extend the rights of children beyond those of chattels.

BC

The only way to tackle the problem that I can see is to raise your own children in the best way you see fit, and hope that others of like mind will join you, learn from each other etc. — Pseudonym

Which is the way it actually works for most people.

I parent in a very different way to the rest of my society, in fact some of my parenting choices (like not sending my children to school) are so different that they're illegal in some countries and against the European Convention on Human Rights. The last thing I'd want is for the government, or some authority to tell me how to do it. — Pseudonym

I don't know what the stats are; the very limited anecdotal information I have is that home-schooled children are at least not disadvantaged by not being enrolled in public (or private) schools. I am not sure whether most home schooling works all the way to college admission.

Why is home schooling often competitive with typical school education? Because much of the typical school program (K-12) is not about learning basic skills -- it's about forming citizens to fit into society. Mass education for a mass society. Basic intellectual skills can be learned out of school (with deliberate effort). It appears that this model is breaking down because it isn't clear what role a good share of the "mass of students" is going to have in the mass society.

Parents, of course, face a similar problem of preparing their children for a world of unknown future economic and social conditions. This is nothing new, of course, and (fortunately) people are quite adaptable.

_db

You presume the nuclear family. What 'ought' to happen is a much more collaborative child-rearing, shared between siblings as aunts and uncles, grandparents, and the older kids learning to look after the younger ones, and so on. What is wrong is that one can reach puberty and start a family with no experience of caring for children or anyone else. — unenlightened

Haha, I suppose you are right. I have no interest in helping others raise their children, personally. Chalk it up to my personal psychology, moral beliefs, or whatever: I do not enjoy being around children. From my perspective the nuclear family hides the child because it fundamentally was a mistake to have a child in the first place.

However I can see the value of collaborative parenting and how this would be better than the traditional nuclear unit. Especially with the integration of the child into society, exposing them to multiple perspectives (instead of just the nuclear parents') and letting them choose their path in life. To a degree, society will always been indoctrinating, but some forms are less bad than others I imagine.

Unfortunately when one talks of standards and qualifications one is starting from the worst possible place, that of the mechanisation of childhood. — unenlightened

Well, I certainly don't want the state to get involved in parenting. I would like to see social attitudes change, though. Path of least resistance can do a lot without any involvement of the state.

Everyone thinks their child will be the ones to achieve happiness on all levels of human endeavors when, in reality, most people reach a mediocre life at best.. — schopenhauer1

Yes - everyone thinks their child will make up for their failures and succeed where they did not. Children are a mini-me, a proxy immortality.

Along the same line is the idea that people are indoctrinated into having children, especially women. Women's bodies are seriously screwed up after having children, yet there's this nauseating culture surrounding motherhood. I cannot speak of this with people in real life, just as I cannot speak of antinatalism, without legitimate fear of repercussions. You can't raise any questions. Motherhood is the aspiration of so many young girls and it often simply leads to stagnation.

Maybe 15% of the heterosexual population in the world are just too fucked up and would be well advised to not marry and not have children. — Bitter Crank

LOL.

Those who would make good spouses and excellent parents should be given financial encouragement. — Bitter Crank

Some might see this as a form of discrimination. Depending on what we see as determining "good" and "excellent" parents.

I am not recommending the state get involved in this. Get rid of the state, ideally. Better to simply heighten awareness of a serious issue. The moral concern exists, but I and the state especially have limited rights in how far we're allowed to intervene.

Some sentences, hell - some paragraphs - in this post were not 100% serious. — Bitter Crank

:smirk:

↪Pseudonym

What methods of parenting do you use that are different than others?

BC

This non-intervention, hands-off approach to parenting exists because children are treated as aesthetic objects of the parents' ideals. — darthbarracuda

There are good reasons for a hands-off approach to regulating parenting without taking the approach that children are aesthetic objects of the parents' ideals (even though that may sometimes be true).

Which institution in society could intervene in child rearing without causing more harm? The Church? Public Health agencies? Child Welfare agencies? The Public Schools? Homeland Security? The Medical Establishment? University Extension Agents? The Mental Health establishment? Is there any evidence that the personnel in all the social agencies know how to raise children?

IF we want autonomous persons, then people need to be at least reasonably free to conduct their lives (including careers, courtship, parenting, etc.). Some autonomous people will do a better job of running their own lives (and being parents) than other people will.

As much as we may object to the way some people live their lives and raise their children, there has to be a high barrier before social intervention can be invoked -- and in general that seems to be the case. The state can competently identify parents who are neglecting the basic needs of children (food, clothing, shelter...) but not much more than that. Why not? Because even trained individual professionals lack the competence to predict how any given child rearing practice will affect the future happiness of the child.

We know some things: We know that physical contact between babies and parents is essential. It's part of nurturing. We know that reading to children is very desirable, as is having plentiful good, positive conversations with one's children. Is it essential that children go to bed at the same time every day? Some parents insist on it, others don't. How much dirt should children come in contact with, and how? Some parents allow their children to play in the dirt, others don't. Is spanking a child for misbehaving a criminal offense? Some parents think so, others don't.

Even though there is some moral risk in a laissez faire relationship between social agencies and families, there is more moral risk in an interventionist relationship.

BC

I have no interest in helping others raise their children, personally. Chalk it up to my personal psychology, moral beliefs, or whatever: I do not enjoy being around children. From my perspective the nuclear family hides the child because it fundamentally was a mistake to have a child in the first place. — darthbarracuda

So, how does somebody who doesn't like being around children in the first place manage to have useful ideas about parenting?

The nuclear family has certainly been beaten sufficiently for its crimes, so let's be merciful. The extended family isn't a bed of rose petals either. The nuclear family makes sense in societies with a lot of mobility from place to place. It works well where there are enough resources to make it work. When resources are insufficient, families struggle whether they are a parent-pair or extended and include grandparents and others.

What do you mean "hides the child"? And if we lay antinatalism aside, why is having a child a mistake in the first place?

schopenhauer1

↪Bitter Crank

↪darthbarracuda

See this article in the New York TImes: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/upshot/americans-are-having-fewer-babies-they-told-us-why.html . What's good in the US is that more and more people of child-bearing age are deciding it is not a good idea to have a child. Unfortunately, the reasons they give are more to do with economics and lifestyle than it is from the idea that the child that will be born will suffer. What bothers me about the article though (and many about population growth) is that it focuses on the idea of labor shortages, as if future children are a future resource to be culled and grown as a crop to be used as the next workers. Governments hope that people's individual attitudes are positive about children so they can have more economic output in their GDP and economic indicators. The future children are used as a mere means to an ends to add to the labor pool. Everyone unintentionally doing their part to provide the next generation of workers.

BC

What bothers me about the article though (and many about population growth) is that it focuses on the idea of labor shortages, as if future children are a future resource to be culled and grown as a crop to be used as the next workers. Governments hope that people's individual attitudes are positive about children so they can have more economic output in their GDP and economic indicators — schopenhauer1

Governments and corporations are worried about where the next generation of workers and consumers will come from, true enough. But most of the concerns expressed by the people in the poll were about personal issues or their personal finances.

Demographers also take note of the "age mushroom" -- a problem that many countries are facing: A large cap of older people supported on a relatively thin stem of younger working people. It takes a certain number of working people to maintain society in working order and to maintain the culture.

IF the world succeeds and shrinking its population back to a more sustainable total -- 3 billion instead of the soon to be reached 8 billion -- every society will have to deal with the mushroom population distribution.

If people are able, they tend to pursue their own interests in the current time frame rather than thinking about the long term future. As the article noted, where women have parity with men in society, the birthrate generally falls below the replacement level.

We need to shrink the world population if we are going to survive (global warming and all that), so it's just as well that people want to spend more time playing with their cats than having children (a quote from the article). Fur babies are generally more convenient than children and they don't live as long. Plus, once the dog has been toilet trained and has learned a few tricks, its education is pretty much over unless one is engaging one's hound in life-long learning. (Our dog was not interested in life-long learning, however.)

Pseudonym

What methods of parenting do you use that are different than others? — darthbarracuda

I'm not sure a full discussion of parenting methods would be on-topic, but broadly I don't believe I have a right to tell my children what to do just because they're my children. So they don't go to school, I don't make them attend any lessons, they have no bedtimes, no curfew, can come and go as they please and do whatever they want to with their day. They choose what they want to eat, drink, wear and buy (with their allowance). I've don't think I've ever reprimanded the youngest, I've reprimanded the eldest on about five or six occasions a long time ago, but regretted it. Does that answer your question?

schopenhauer1

↪Bitter Crank

I did mention the lifestyle and economic reasons given. Being the New York Times they also wanted it to have a feminist bent: it is saying women have more freedoms and thus use time for things other than parenting but at the same time saying that the government deincentivizes having children with little support like no paid family leave etc. Either way, the main reason is not putting another person into existence.

Artemis

↪Pseudonym

There's a reason this is illegal in some places and just generally frowned upon.

The APA describes parenting styles such as yours thusly:

Permissive
In this parenting style, parents are warm, but lax. They fail to set firm limits, to monitor children's activities closely or to require appropriately mature behavior of their children.

Children raised with this parenting style tend to be impulsive, rebellious, aimless, domineering, aggressive and low in self-reliance, self-control and achievement.

Uninvolved
In this parenting style, parents are unresponsive, unavailable and rejecting.

Children raised with this parenting style tend to have low self-esteem and little self-confidence and seek other, sometimes inappropriate, role models to substitute for the neglectful parent.

Pseudonym

↪NKBJ

Well, I'll be sure to tell my children who are currently considerate, confident, calm, look after themselves and have achieved great things. They must be doing something wrong.

Artemis

The tyrannical aspect of this comes in the form of an oppressive guilt that the progeny experiences. Paradoxically, the act of parenting is a selfish act of sacrifice. The parent sacrifices a great deal, perhaps even everything, for the sake of their child, and the child feels obligated to return this reciprocity, regardless of their actual appreciation. — darthbarracuda

That's not tyranny, that's just how being a social being works. Perhaps you wish we could have evolved from crocodiles instead so we could be totally independent, but we evolved from apes and as such are social beings and cannot live without others. Yes, we are born indebted to our families. And in a perfect world we would repay them by taking care of them as they get older the way we take care of our own children while they are young.

Artemis

↪Pseudonym

I didn't say anything about your kids specifically. (Though I do honestly assume it's not as rosy and happy as you claim it is... perhaps you'll find out when they are adults and have their own kids how they really feel about your wonderful parenting style.)

But one family working out despite poor parenting choices cannot outweigh the fact that the majority of such families do not fare as well.

BC

Being the New York Times — schopenhauer1

A joke ribbing the NYT's biases: The world is going to end tomorrow.

Wall street Journal's headline: World ends tomorrow; markets will be closed.

New York Times' headline: World ends tomorrow; women and minorities will be disproportionately affected.

government deincentivizes having children — schopenhauer1

Granted that the US is one of the few industrialized that doesn't incentivize having children (or so I've been led to believe) but the Industrialized nations that do have incentives have less-than-replacement birthrates as well.

There is also corporate policy and the state of the economy at play in reproductive decisions. I would be reluctant (were I straight, 25, and married) to father a child at this point were I substantial indebted, had a less-than-adequate income, had a small apartment and unable to afford better, and so on.

Standards have changed; my parents had 5 of their children during the Great Depression. It was tough, of course. They were broke, lived in substandard housing (even by the standards of 1930s small town), and didn't have bright prospects. (Did they want 7 children in all? No, but the options for fertility control were very limited back then.)

Upward mobility has always been easier with fewer children. No children makes it much easier.

The male/female parity issue seems to be critical. Large numbers of women feel free to decline having children for understandable reasons -- they want -- usually need -- to work. Pregnancy and motherhood is highly inconvenient if one wants to build a career. Assigning the bulk of child care to others is very expensive. Many couples find that good daycare takes the income of one of the two earners.

It would be much easier to bear children if quality and inexpensive (subsidized) day care were available. But, in most cases, it isn't.

Personally, I would think that raising children would be a better job than a lot of the dull work that people end up doing in offices, never mind factories or farms. It's a choice I don't have to consider.

Pseudonym

But one family working out despite poor parenting choices cannot outweigh the fact that the majority of such families do not fare as well. — NKBJ

It's a 'fact' now is it? You should have no trouble laying your hands on the evidence then.

Artemis

↪Pseudonym

You can loom at the American Psychology Associations own website if you want.
Or pick up any developmental psych 101 textbook. It's pretty basic stuff.

BC

↪Pseudonym

As Tolstoy observed in Anna Karenina, "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." It's difficult to predict which child rearing style will work out for the best. I don't think we know what will guarantee happy and unhappy families.

I still think people are born with inborn traits which dominate over the long run. For most people, this helps undo the ill-effects of whatever bad parenting they had. Not always, of course. Another factor in determining outcomes is what children do when they are not at home. A lot of bad behavior begins when children find the wrong crowd to hang around with.

Pseudonym

↪NKBJ

Yeah, have you ever read a parenting book from the 50s? All that was 'fact' at the time too.

Pseudonym

↪Bitter Crank

For sure, I think providing children with the right environment is key.

Artemis

↪Pseudonym

Gotta go with the best knowledge you have at any given time in history.

You really shouldn't post about your personal life if you're going to react so allergically to criticism thereof.

Pseudonym

↪NKBJ

It's hardly a deeply personal revelation. I've outlined my parenting style in a short paragraph, not published my diary.

And if you think asking for evidence to back up a claim and pointing out that science is not immune to paradigms, is "reacting allergically" then I can't imagine how you think a less "allergic" debate would proceed.

Artemis

And if you think asking for evidence to back up a claim and pointing out that science is not immune to paradigms, — Pseudonym

I think it's pretty stupid to ask for evidence and then, upon being told the evidence, questions all science and psychology, not just one study or one aspect, but the totality of it. If not from science, from whence should one get facts with which to back up any claims? And if you don't trust any sources of facts, why ask for them in the first place?

Yes, your knee-jerk condemnation of the entire field does show that you are reacting allergically, as does your snark in your previous post.

schopenhauer1

A joke ribbing the NYT's biases: The world is going to end tomorrow.

Wall street Journal's headline: World ends tomorrow; markets will be closed.

New York Times' headline: World ends tomorrow; women and minorities will be disproportionately affected. — Bitter Crank

:lol: Yep, sounds about right!

Personally, I would think that raising children would be a better job than a lot of the dull work that people end up doing in offices, never mind factories or farms. It's a choice I don't have to consider. — Bitter Crank

Again, what are we trying to get out of having more people, and so on and so on?

Pseudonym

I think it's pretty stupid to ask for evidence and then, upon being told the evidence, questions all science and psychology, not just one study or one aspect, but the totality of it. — NKBJ

You haven't provided me with the evidence yet, you've provided me with the theory which claims to remain unfalisifed by the evidence. Have you no idea how science works? The opinion of the APA is not evidence. Evidence is the survey results, the psychological experiments, the twin studies, and the statistical analysis done on each. What the APA think all of that evidence means is an opinion, not a fact. If the evidence shows a correlation between one measure of one parenting style, with some other measure of "rebelliousness" (whatever the hell that is), then it is the opinion of the APA that the one causes the other and the opinion of the APA that each measure they've used is a reliable one. The evidence is only that they are correlated. Being good scientists, I've no doubt they will continually test their theory and try to control for complicating factors, but being humans I've also no doubt that they will suffer from confirmation bias, spotlighting, experimenter bias and all the other biases which go into supporting the current paradigm. That's why I asked for the evidence, not the opinion of those interpreting it. I cannot question "just one study" because you have not provided me with "just one study" to support your claim.

You realise that the results from the majority of psychological experiments cannot be replicated under the same conditions, let a lone slight varied ones which aim to control for some complicating factor or other?

Do you conduct your friendships on the basis of the best available scientific advice about how to befriend people? Do you conduct your love affairs according to the latest scientific study on interpersonal relationships? No? Then why on earth would you expect anyone to conduct their relationship with their children according to what a single academic association happen to be thinking at one point in time in a field notorious for its inability to produce reliable theories?

unenlightened

↪Pseudonym

My experience is similar to yours, and the principle i have always followed is that one should treat children as if they are the people one would like them to be. Treat them like little shits, and they become little shits, manipulate them and they become manipulators, respect them and they become respectful, in just the same way that if you speak Spanish to them, they will become Spanish speakers.

Pseudonym

↪unenlightened

Absolutely, this seems so fundamentally obvious to me that I'm genuinely baffled when people seem to think that children need to be drilled into line to prevent their full psychological breakdown. With the obvious caveat that some element of biology will constrain the range of available options, the choice from within that range is determined by the child's environment.

All children learn from disciplining is that those with more power should tell those with less power what to do.

Marcus de Brun

From the foregoing one can assume the over-iterated fact that there is no precise standard to apply in the exercise of parenthood. And there is no precise measure of ones success or failure.

As the opening post points out, parenthood remains unregulated, for moral and practical reasons. The moral reasons expose the failure of philosophy to establish a codifed universally accepted morality. The practical reasons expose the failure of philosophy to establish a universally acceptable system of social governance. Philosophy fails in both regards because human beings are emotional, before they are rational. All too human as Nietzsche reminds.

One need only read this thread and note loci where presumably intelligent philosophical individuals contaminate the discourse with their emotion. I am guilty of this failure, in my reasoning but l do try to avoid the pothole wherein philosophy simply becomes therapy or ego.

The current status of the interface between applied parenting and that which individuals and experts deem to be the best or most appropriate modal applications of parenting, exposes the primitive state of our colective psychological and philosophical evolution in the general as opposed to the individual sense.

All those who have actually done a relatively decent job at parenting are on some level deeply convinced of the inverse. They must be, because good parenting demands constant and sometimes brutal self appraisal. All good parents are insecure, they must be because being a good parent means doing some inevitables differently.

The laissez-fare notion of setting no boundaries for ones offspring, is a ludicrous and entirely emotional proposal in the absence of strict definitions and detailed explanation of the stated approach. Pseudonym is clearly a highly intelligent person. This is evident in much of his/her writing on this forum. A declaration of this approach in the absence of detailed explanation is pure emotion.

If his approach is opened to a full analysis, (and assuming that he has or is rearing loved and rational children, the approach will reveal the necessary boundaries within the nuance of the approach itself. To the mind of a child a frown from a parent can be as much discipline as the rod might prove to be for another.

Home schooling can be more disciplined than formal schooling. Labels in the context of this discussion accomplish little more than emotional antagonisms.

This point brings me back to the initial point in respect of the failure of philosophy. Philosophy fails when contaminated by emotion, and this discussion (when emotionally contaminated) is an example of this failure.

On the morality of parenting

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions